Enhancing appeal of aggregate payment framing: effects of temporal payment framing and goal proximity on consumer purchase decisions

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine how temporal payment framing (i.e. segregate vs aggregate framing) and goal proximity (i.e. proximal vs distal goals) influence consumer purchase decisions. Design/methodology/approach Study 1 included four laboratory experiments and examined the moderating role of goal proximity in temporal payment framing. Study 2, using Facebook and a firm’s website for an online field experiment with a data set of 38,731 impressions, extended Study 1, enhancing the generalizability of the findings. Findings Consumers exhibited a stronger purchase intention for segregate payment framing. This effect became less pronounced when goal proximity was coupled with temporal payment framing. If products or services emphasized a distal goal, individuals showed greater responses for aggregate payment framing rather than segregate payment framing. The effect was substantial, demonstrating a consistent behavioral pattern in individuals’ browsing choices, including browsing duration and the number of pages viewed. Research limitations/implications Future studies ought to investigate if the alignment of goal proximity and temporal payment framing holds consistent across different product types, such as utilitarian versus hedonic products, or search goods versus experience goods. Practical implications Marketers can improve the effectiveness and efficiency of their marketing strategies by crafting persuasive messages where the monetary offer is in harmony with the goal proximity. Originality/value Temporal payment framing literature has focused on payment framing; however, consumers make their decisions based on a combination of factors rather than solely on payment framing. This study identifies the moderating role of goal proximity.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 3 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.